Sunday, November 12, 2006

Odds and Ends

Yesterday I removed the panels from the plane that make the interior surfaces next to the front seats' occupants' legs. They originally were part vinyl and part carpet with only two very small pockets in the vinyl portion. Over time, however, the glue had broken down and the carpet had formed really huge makeshift pockets. Not only are they ugly, it's very difficult to find something once put into that abyss and the carpet flaps get in the way of sliding the seats around.

So my project for last night was to make some pockets and reattach the carpet to the panels. I finished up at about 1 am and was fairly happy with the results. Tomorrow morning I'll go reinstall them before John's 9:00 am training flight.

I finally got into bed with an aching back and was delighted to lay down and unwind. On the verge of sleep, that damn annoying voice in my head volunteered "What are your options if the engine fails on takeoff from 13?" Drat. The voice knows I can't leave a question like that alone. So I mentally went through as much as I could, and the part that's really hard is landing site. With little altitude you have two options: aim for the marsh or the winding bit of tributary going through the marsh. I don't know which is better; Husband thinks the water because at least that way there's not marsh grass bogging down the landing gear and it might be a little smoother. With a little more altitude, there's the vineyard that has some open fields (next to the vined fields) off to the right at about 90 degrees, and there's the Colonial Parkway about 30 degrees to the right a little farther out, a nice 3-lane road with no medians, few signs but generally enough traffic to be unappealing. Beyond that, there's the river. Off to the left is a big well-treed neighborhood.

During preflight for Friday's solo flight, the AWOS said something I had never heard before: "Density altitude 1500." (Not that I haven't heard of density altitude, but I had never heard it included in the weather report.) Field elevation is 49'. I had no idea whether that changed anything, and since I had never heard that before I assumed it was significant. With the engine still running, I pulled out my cell phone, turned it on and called Husband. He succinctly said that at 1500 it was nothing to worry about and to go on with my flight; we'd talk about it later. So I did, and the lesson effectively was that the density altitude is the altitude the engine will "think" it's at. Performance will be akin to what it would you'd expect there. The time to be concerned about it is when it's much higher than field elevation (I think Husband said 3000' counts as much higher), because it will cause a longer takeoff roll and faster landing groundspeed (for the same airspeed).

Tomorrow I have a lesson at 1 pm. It feels like forever since the last time I went up with Chuck (21 days tomorrow, in fact). We're covering short- and soft-field takeoffs and landings. What I know of them now are:
  1. for short-field takeoffs, you climb out at Vx instead of Vy after going to full power with the brakes still applied (to get a running start instead of a rolling start); good for obstacle avoidance
  2. for short-field landings, you have a steeper descent (obstacle avoidance) and try to land really slowly (it's a short field, after all, right?)
  3. for soft-field takeoffs, I don't know anything yet, but you probably want to get off that soft field sooner rather than later so maybe it's like a short-field takeoff
  4. for soft-field landings, you want to be slow and hold the nosewheel off as long as possible to minimize opportunity for damaging the nosegear; a soft field example is an emergency landing in a crop field where there might be dirt clumps and furrows and whatnot, and if you want any hope of flying the plane out later, you want to preserve the equipment.


Those seem to have practical value with regards to emergency procedures and the short-field stuff could apply to regular landing strips, too. In fact, JGG requests short-field takeoffs as part of the noise-abatement procedures. I guess it's time for me to learn them!

5 comments:

  1. Hi K,

    I just started a blog here yesterday, and after looking for flying related blogs, found your blog.

    I got my ppl in 2000, (now have ~300hrs), and I'm in Canada (Toronto, Ontario) so it's interesting to see what differences there are in training methods between U.S. / Canada, or at least between my own training and yours :)

    Congratulations on going solo after only ~14 hours !

    Took me a *lot* longer than 14 hours. Most of those were spent tryin to learn how to land the plane, so don't think you're the only one who finds learning to land difficult.

    I'm sorry that the experience wasn't what you had anticipated though ;)

    Crosswind landings are always a challenge. One thing that may not have been emphasized (or at least I didn't notice it in your blog, was the fact that the controls get less effective as the plane slows down, so you need to *increase* your inputs until you're (possibly) using full aileron/rudder to counteract the crosswind. If on the other hand, you neutralize the controls completely as you slow down, that can lead to loss of control / infulence of the crosswind.


    I was luckier than you in that respect as I got some good expierence with them before going solo.

    In particular, I went up one day with an insturctor on a very windy day where we were the only plane in the pattern at our normally very busy airport (CNC3 Brampton). The winds that day were something like 280-300 20G28 ! We started on rwy 33. I had to use full right rudder and after a couple of landings, I "let" the instructor fly the next landing, partly so I could watch him and partly because my leg was so sore !

    We also did some landings on rwy 26 and it wasn't any easier :)

    That was probably the maximum crosswing that a 172 (and me) could handle but it was a valuable learning experience.

    Just curious, it sounds like you've been taught/using the crab-and-kick technique (for lack of a better term) rather than the "wing low" method. I.e. you have the plane crabbed all the way down to the flare, then "kick out with rudder" to straigthten the plane. Is that correct ?

    The other technique "wing low" has you flying the plane with the upwind wing banked into the wind and rudder held to straighten out the plane, i.e. what would be a forward slip if there was no wind.

    Has your instructor shown you that technique?

    Either will work, and is really personal perference (in a small light plane), with the crab-kick usually used for very large planes, which becuase of their engines hanging from the wings can't have their wings banked very much to avoid having the enginges hit the ground !

    I was taught the "wing low" method and personally think it's an easier and better technique. You have the plane lined up all the way on final ... or at least short final, and already have the controls "preset" for landing.

    With the "kick" method, not only do you have to kick in the rudder at the last minute, but after (initially)neutralizing your ailerons from the crab, you will have to re-apply the aileron (and more as you slow down) to counter-act the rudder input. Much higher (and un-neccesary IMO) workload for a light plane.

    If you've never been show "wing-low", ask your husband and instructor(s) about it.

    btw, if you don't know about them, avsig.com and pprune.org are two very good avition forums. Avsig will cost you $20/yr though (pprune is free). Both have very experienced pilots contributing to them and are a treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    ttyl

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, thanks for the big post! As a point of information, having never flown with my instructor in noticeable winds, I wasn't taught *anything* for dealing with it! It's possible that he mentioned it during a lesson, but many items that didn't apply to the situation at hand went in one ear and out the other...

    Thanks for the pointers to the forums, and kind regards!

    ReplyDelete
  3. >As a point of information, having never flown with my instructor in noticeable winds, I wasn't taught *anything* for dealing with it

    That's rather disturbing to hear if true.

    Where did you learn the term "crabbing" then? Just from ground school ? ... or was that only taught to you in regards to x-ctry navigation?

    Slips / (side and forward) in application for x-wind landing and for altitude loss/control are par of the syllabus for our training here.

    They are an essential skill that you absolutely need (as you found out the hard way).

    I know you're training system there is a bit more complex than ours, in the options that instructors/schools can offer. (up here the syllabus is set by Transport Canada), so I'm not sure what is required to be taught there. (Are x-wind landings part of your flight test?)

    Have you been taught any x-wind techniques since ?

    If not, you and your instructor need to schedule time on a moderately windy day, or you IMO you need to find another instructor.

    You mentinoned in some other posts about being too high on final. Have you been taught a forward-slip to lose altitude? Have you done a simulated engine failure in the pattern? That's where a forward slip is very handy. With a sim-engine-out and especially with a REAL engine out you absolutely don't want to be LOW on final !!

    You also mentioned in another post about being 2-300 agl on a "long" final. Hopefully you were still at or above the VASI glide slope.

    I hate "x-ctry" patterns. If I'm on downwind following another plane and that plane keeps flying beyond where I would turn base, I would throttle back / drop flaps / slow down to avoid a too-long final. If it got ridiculous, I'd probably leave the pattern and re-enter it. "x-ctry" patterns seem to be a problem all over. I've read about them in U.S. Trainiing, U.K. training and experienced them here :)

    That reminds me of another good website Avweb.com where they have some great articles written by very experienced pilots

    http://www.avweb.com/columns/

    One author there, John Deakin (Pelican's Post) has said that when flying any prop plane, and especially a single engine one, he keeps the VASI at "white" (flies above the glide slope until very short final. Engines are pretty reliable these days, but ...you never know, so it's a good idea to keep within a gliding "envelope" height/range of the runway when in the pattern.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike -

    It's been a blessing and a bane to be learning over the past two months or so because it has been either very calm (<5kt winds) or too windy to fly. It's been good for learning the plane and learning non-wind basics, getting to learn "normal" takeoffs and landings without worrying about crosswinds. But of course, I need experience with crosswinds! The weather just hasn't worked out with my training schedule!

    I've done a lot of reading and studying on slips (and forward slips have been demonstrated to me but I haven't done it yet) and crosswind management techniques in general since the solo, but it's up to the winds at hand to let me practice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >it has been either very calm (<5kt winds) or too windy to fly.

    Hmm, something sounds odd here.

    "too windy" to fly ?

    I suppose it's possible, but I find it hard to believe that over 2 months that you didn't have a few days where the winds were ~5-10, G5-10 kts or something in that range and that your instructor wouldn't fly in that amount of moderate wind.

    If he's calling that amount of wind "too windy", then IMO he's being too conservative.

    Even if you choose to fly only on calm days, you obviously need to be prepared in case the conditions change.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete